-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
this thread was about rape; it's over now
- Thread starter Avatar Korra
- Start date
- Status
Once again, I think this is a case of poor wording on Impetus' part. I agree with what I believe the essence of his posts to have been, which is the following: People should try to keep behavior that makes them a likelier target of rape to a minimum. It's not that it's their fault that they are raped, they're not responsible for someone else's actions, however if I myself had a tendency to get drunk without a friend at a party and/or to dress provocatively or really to do anything else that puts a bullseye on me and increases my odds of being raped, I would try to avoid said behavior. I'm sure many rape victims have regretted making certain actions that they feel may have contributed to them being targeted, and I feel that the rest of us should try to learn from their misfortune. It obviously won't put an end to rape, but I'm confident it would lead to many being avoided.
If you choose to disagree with this, I'm not going to get into an argument over it, since it'll just be a case of contrast of opinion. At the moment I don't think I personally have anything to add, so really any argument would just result in trading insults/flaming/you get the point.
You've overdone this a bit. You lost me at puking. I always take good care of my friends who get sick. Also that would be disgusting. Also are you insinuating that she has a boyfriend? Cause that would never end well.
The night that my grandfather died I will always remember how his children cracked a joke to the effect that my grandmother would be crying all night. It wasn't a very funny joke. I was stunned that they had said it to my grandmother. But she laughed at it. It's one of those surreal moments, that become fewer and far between with age, where I feel like like there's still an autistic gap between myself and other people.
I don't understand how they could take that chance that she might laugh it off too. It still seems brazen and callous, and I didn't like it (over a month later I still remember it). But I get it from the perspective of dark humor. I get that they were hurting. I get that they wanted all of us to be hurting less, and maybe even half succeeded.
I have been affected by rape, it is so condescending to say that I haven't. I have felt that anger, pain, and sadness. I have wished a man dead because of the things he had done to those close to me, and I don't do that to anyone. I have been hard pressed to sit through rape scenes in movies and should hope that goes the same for everyone (but that's usually the point). I have been affected by suicide. I have gone through a period where I got really mad and told people that suicide jokes weren't funny. Now that's not true. They are. But they weren't funny for me at the time.
Dark humor is easy to make because it helps us cope with a world where horrible things are frighteningly prevalent. For both genders! If you think the words of the "5 percent" of women being unified is proof that all the guys are pigs and that women don't also think these are funny then think again. Here is an article that still condemns Tosh, but explains the comedic concept. I looked up these links because I knew it would be better than citing my sister, mother, and all of my female friends as the ones who make the rape jokes.
If you read this post, please consider that I am not attempting to malign you, or make you come across as worse than you intended; I am trying to offer you a perspective I feel that your post lacks. I'm not even going to bring up the fact beyond this sentence that telling, for example, women to dress appropriately (this concept of 'dressing "provocatively" = raped' is pretty ignorant btw) so they don't get raped is oppressive; Dan and other posters already dealt with that.
The reality of the situation is that -- as a girl -- I know that I don't live in a utopia where I am able to do as I like, go where I like when I like and with whom I like, etc. at all times without putting myself at risk. So, like most women, I don't regularly engage in unsafe behaviour, because I don't want anything bad to happen to me. It's not like I want to be raped, or any given person wants to be raped, so I avoid it -- and so? Most women are well aware of the dangers that face them in the world already, so why condescend to tell them? See, I just find this whole argument so naïve -- that if people stopped behaving unsafely, they wouldn't be raped, and the converse of that, that people who have been raped behaved unsafely. You even acknowledge when you say 'it obviously won't put an end to rape' that rape doesn't only arise as a result of unsafe behaviours... But you know what behaviour puts you at risk of rape? Interacting with other people. The statistics relating to the circumstances of rape have been brought up previously in the thread, so I won't reiterate them. Most people already seek to strike a balance between going about their lives pleasantly/efficiently and living safely. Don't you?
So, really, you're offering nothing new, except a lame protestation in the face of a serious issue, and comforting yourself with having made that statement, as if it will somehow help. Reality check: it won't. Preventing rape has to start with stopping people from offending, not stopping people from being raped -- not just philosophically, but practically. In fact, attitudes like that don't help. Of course people should take precautions to keep themselves safe. That is called common sense. You even acknowledge rape victims beat themselves up after the fact -- and encourage the same victim-blaming mindset that leads them to do so. If anything, an important mental block on the way to recovery for many rape survivors is realising they didn't deserve to be raped. I imagine you try to avoid practices that would put you at risk of being mugged, for instance. If you were mugged, I doubt you'd want to hear that it's your fault.
A post like yours only accomplishes two things -- a) it shifts blame onto the victim, as if they brought about their rape, whether they risked anything or not, and lends legitimacy to the self-blaming that arises in many rape victims b) it ignores all the rapes that occur outside of situations like the ones you described (e.g. being raped by a relative or teacher where no inebriation or 'provocative' clothing is involved). While your post no doubt seems reasonable to you in its fence-sitting, it's fairly stark in its self-contradiction, because while you acknowledge that nobody is responsible for someone else raping them, you then say that if they had not done a given thing, it would have avoided them being raped. So you're directly linking certain behaviours = you're probably going to get raped. How are you not creating a sense of blame and direct responsibility there?
I am attributing the words to you, because you attributed them to yourself in the second paragraph; I may be mistaken and you may be attempting to paraphrase Impetus's arguments, in which case my points stand but are not directed at you. Also, please don't try to defend Impetus; he can defend himself, and he should be the one held accountable for his words, not you. I find his arguments reprehensibly hypocritical, and I think he should either reevaluate his attitude or his wording.
ETA: vonFiedler has kindly supplied the tl;dr for my post. Here it is. tl;dr: VuvuvelaBzzz is preaching to the choir.
No one wakes up and thinks 'damn, I think I want to be a terrible evil person who ruins other people's lives.' I feel like the ridiculous debate over what qualifies as rape has to do in part with a simplified portrait of the rapist as this sadistic and creepy male who gives off a weird vibe.
It doesn't matter if the rapist is 'really such an upstanding guy who didn't realize what they were doing', rape is rape is rape. That attitude just perpetuates the ideology that women's bodies are automatically available sexual objects.
It doesn't matter if the rapist is 'really such an upstanding guy who didn't realize what they were doing', rape is rape is rape. That attitude just perpetuates the ideology that women's bodies are automatically available sexual objects.
Just to clarify for some people on this thread
Somebody should be allowed to wear what they want, and go out at night and feel safe that they won't be attacked. While Rape Jokes CAN (Rarely) be funny, the comedian must be careful not to cross the line. If it comes down to the point where you can just say something about somebody getting raped and people laugh, it shows what society has come down to.
rape
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
I don't believe 'dressing provocatively=raped', however I do feel it is a contributing factor in some cases. And yes, I do think that striking a balance is important. Obviously it's people's right choose how they behave, dress, etc. and to draw a line for themselves concerning how far they're willing to go to avoid being raped. I don't think that people should live in their own little bubbles, sheltered from the world.
The problem with common sense isn't actually common. I personally believe that there's a large number of people who have not given much thought to how their behaviour affects their odds of getting raped, simply because, as has been stated previously in this thread, many people seem to think they're impervious to rape(especially men. even you said "most women", and I know you're not male) and many other dangers, I myself being among them until recently. As you pointed out, I acknowledge no one can guarantee they won't be raped. I'm not advocating that people limiting their freedoms is a measure of the highest priority in order to put an end to rape. I'm not saying this is how rape prevention has to start, rather pointing out that it's simply just one of the more effective things people can do by themselves for themselves to prevent being raped. I even agree that if that's someone's entire stance on rape-prevention that it is in fact naive, however I think the same can be said of the notion that it is insignificant.
I'm not encouraging victims to beat themselves up; merely stating that some do, and I definitely don't think they deserve it. I do think that sometimes they're rightfully wondering whether if they had behaved differently they would have avoided being raped. No, this is not a healthy thing to think as a victim, but it is a legitimate question that people who have not been raped and want to avoid it(I should think that includes the vast majority) should ask themselves, albeit with slightly different wording, and figure out what they're willing to do about it, because as I said, most people don't give it much thought. I'm not trying to come off as condescending as you put it. Hell, I haven't given it much thought to the topic myself up until now, so no, I don't think I'm on higher ground than anyone posting in this thread on the issue.
Also, as far as my post not helping, I was never actually under the impression that my post would impact the world much at all. The amount of people that read it isn't all that large, and those who would take the advice to heart are even fewer. Honestly, it's unrealistic to think that anything said in this thread is going to have some massive impact on society(unless someone posts the gospel of do-it-yourself rape-prevention and someone else who reads it is sexually assaulted), and therefore I don't post with any such intention. I post in order to express my opinion and to participate in discussion that I, for the most part, find interesting.
To an extent I was paraphrasing, but I did also use the reference to his post as means to clarify a point that I believe should be made and deserves clarification. The same goes for the post I tried to clarify in my first post in the thread. I'm not defending anyone as much as I am trying to add something that I think should be in the discussion, even though it's not the be all end all of it. You did add a perspective my post lacked, but I intended it to be lacking, as the only goal was to clarify.
EDIT: Missed the self-contradiction part. As far as that's concerned, if we want to be really technical, there is a form of responsibility, albeit indirect. The victims of rape that were raped due to engaging in behaviour that increased their odds of being raped slightly are about as responsible for being raped as a bank-worker who dies in a bank-robbery is for his own death due to working at a bank. In both cases the victim is responsible for taking on the increased risk, however they are not directly responsible for anyone else's actions. It's hard to say this and not come off as if you're defending rapists, but in reality it's just explaining why the particular victim was raped, instead of someone else or nobody(not the most common thing, but possible). Really this is mainly about lowering your chances of being raped, rather than lowering the instances of rape significantly, though I do believe there would be some decrease as I stated in my last post.
EDIT2:
Why does everyone spell my name with 3 Zs? Also, there's been a lot of preaching to the choir in this thread. Most points have been made multiple times. I just don't remember anyone else making the specific point and not being misinterpreted, so I decided to join my fellow preachers.
Assuming you're asking me, I mainly used dressing provocatively as an example because Impetus had done so in his post. As far as what I'm suggesting goes, I'm only saying people should question what they do and decide what lengths they're willing to go to to lower the chances of being raped. That said, if they're willing to wear sweaters and longs pants 100% of the time, that would probably cover not dressing provocatively, despite it being a pretty loose term.
EDIT:
I don't think anyone's saying otherwise, but in most cases a rapist would probably choose someone dressed like this, rather than someone "wearing long pants and a sweater" as iDunno put it.
Hey, that's actually pretty accurate if you add 50 years to the woman in the middle. Even down to the messiness of the table!
I think everyone knows that you probably shouldnt take a "crazy new drug" offered to you by the truck driver you hitched a ride home from in a secluded wood after drinking all night. But people should dress however the fuck they want.
When you say "it is a legitimate question that people who have not been raped and want to avoid it should ask themselves" how does it not immediately follow that "it is a legitimate question that people who have been raped and are looking for who to blame should ask themselves". This is kinda the point here, despite what you claim, you actually are encouraging victims to beat themselves up. And to be honest, I dont think you are making much of any point otherwise..
Also you are making a lot of baseless assumptions..
When you say "it is a legitimate question that people who have not been raped and want to avoid it should ask themselves" how does it not immediately follow that "it is a legitimate question that people who have been raped and are looking for who to blame should ask themselves". This is kinda the point here, despite what you claim, you actually are encouraging victims to beat themselves up. And to be honest, I dont think you are making much of any point otherwise..
Also you are making a lot of baseless assumptions..
That's irrelevant. There is no woman alive that would wear those hideous boots - especially in combination with that tank top and those shorts.
Also, that isn't true and the fact that you think it is just shows how deluded and ignorant you are. There are many women who are raped regardless of what they wear.
I believe you and I are actually on the same side. You were correct in your first paragraph about my intentions, because expressing my interpretation of the legalities was my goal. I've stated several times that I have zero tolerance for men taking advantage of women (or vice versa) in any form, whether it be physical, emotional, etc. If a guy waits until a girl is wasted to try to have sex with her, that is the most disgusting moral crime I can think of. Now, what I was really trying to do was to shed some light on that gray area where alcohol is involved, because you can't ignore the fact that a person gets drunk on purpose. You can't "accidentally" get drunk. When a person chooses to get drunk, they take responsibility for the fact that their judgment is going to be impaired severely. This may sound harsh, but if you get drunk and then consent to sex with someone then I can't have too much sympathy for you. You have every control over how much and what you put into your body, so if you don't want to have your judgment taken advantage of, don't get freakin drunk. Now, if a person gets drunk and actually passes out, and then a person has sex with them without asking, then that's rape. But if you're still awake and conscious and you say yes, that's consent.
As for the example of Myzozoa and Oglemi, I believe I conceded that point after Myzo's earlier post and said I would include that case in the realm of rape, due to the fact that fear could scare them into not resisting. You are correct, once the person objects and the other person continues, that becomes at a minimum sexual assault. Like I said before, all I am looking to do is expand my knowledge and refine my beliefs, so if I'm underinformed or misinformed, I want to find out. That doesn't mean my opinions are any more/less correct than anyone else's, it just means I want my opinions to be based on fact and not myth. Thanks for your response though, it's helped me greatly.
It's a legitimate question, however it's not healthy for a victim to be thinking about it, that's why I'm saying they shouldn't. In terms of baseless assumptions, if by baseless you mean not backed up by statistics, you're right. But I myself am an example of various of a person who hadn't given much thought to the subject, and I know many others who haven't done so as well. Maybe I'm just familiar with an odd sample of society, then I really am making baseless assumptions. Obviously thinking that if people did give thought and changed their bahaviour to some extent will make the instances of rape decrease isn't a claim I can prove through facts, but I believe that to some degree it would. I can't really respond to what you're saying if you don't give me specific examples. Anyways, I don't really want to bicker in the thread, so if you care to clear this up, we can continue in VM until some consensus is reached, if that happens. Same goes for anyone else.
I'm not saying it always applies. I'm fully aware it's not always the case. Old women are raped as well, but in many circumstances what I said is true. Obviously dress isn't the only determining factor, nor did I ever claim it to be. I never claimed that it goes for every case.
Why do you have this singular image of rape? A single rapist with a single motive, who rapes strangers based on lust ('would probably choose someone'), and a single type of rape victim, dressed provocatively and attractively.
I already responded to this point, but I'd like to add that if people gave thought and changed their behaviour so they stopped raping people, the incidence of rape would decrease too.
Since it is difficult to accomplish that on an interpersonal level, we take precautions to avoid being raped, out of the necessity to do so. But your solution to the problem isn't much of a solution in light of that fact.
Ok vuvuzelabzz lets bring this back to the original point.
Lets say women could protect themselves from being raped by some small margin by dressing differently. They should weigh up this small but assumed-real impact against why they want to wear short skirts.
Men also can have a small but assumed-real impact on the number of rapes if they dont make rape jokes. Due to points made earlier in this discussion about how rape jokes contribute to a climate of repression of rape victims and defence of rapists.
In your opinion, is it ok for men to make rape jokes? Or at least is it reasonable for a person to think that people ought not make rape jokes?
Now what if, making the argument that women ought to be careful about any behaviour that might encourage rape also contributed to rape-culture? Would you at least think that a person probably ought to have a really good reason for bringing up that point?
Lets say women could protect themselves from being raped by some small margin by dressing differently. They should weigh up this small but assumed-real impact against why they want to wear short skirts.
Men also can have a small but assumed-real impact on the number of rapes if they dont make rape jokes. Due to points made earlier in this discussion about how rape jokes contribute to a climate of repression of rape victims and defence of rapists.
In your opinion, is it ok for men to make rape jokes? Or at least is it reasonable for a person to think that people ought not make rape jokes?
Now what if, making the argument that women ought to be careful about any behaviour that might encourage rape also contributed to rape-culture? Would you at least think that a person probably ought to have a really good reason for bringing up that point?
George Carlin got away with jokes about all sorts of shit because they were very obviously jokes.
It's cool, I appreciate that you're trying to take this shit on board. I didn't really focus on the latter two examples because I figured it was something you already factored in. That said, I don't really agree with you re: alcohol and consent. Obviously it's a fairly complex issue because it's not like people regularly carry breathalysers around and we have some sort of set in stone "unable to consent = X% BAC" level, and becomes even harder to deal with if both parties are drunk, but personally, I say that if you can't trust someone to drive, why on earth would you trust them to be able to say yes to sex?
Yeah, the drunk person made the choice to get drunk, but I think everyone should ignore the drunk saying they're fine to drive and should definitely prevent them from getting in a car, both for their own sake and other peoples. Same deal with them saying they're totally fine to have sex. Don't have sex with them, and make sure they're not having sex with other people, both for the drunk person's sake (so they're not raped) and also for other peoples (so they're not raping and/or getting accused of rape).
Some of my friends prefer to say that if someone is to drunk to be trusted to make a rational decision about getting a tattoo, they're too drunk to be trusted to make a rational decision about sex. Either way, I don't believe it's fair to say "well, your judgement is clearly impaired, ergo it's your own fault if you say yes and then we have sex, even if I obviously wouldn't let you drive me home or hold onto my house keys because you're too stupid at the moment to do so".
the one thing about this thread that gets me is all of the people saying we should give tosh a break because everybody makes mistakes
that would all be fine if he hadn't done all of this shit a million times already
he has always been the rape joke and sexist joke guy, this is so far off from the first time he has done this sort of thing that it's laughable (probably the only thing about him that is)
that would all be fine if he hadn't done all of this shit a million times already
he has always been the rape joke and sexist joke guy, this is so far off from the first time he has done this sort of thing that it's laughable (probably the only thing about him that is)
@elqueso - Oh no I completely agree with you, I absolutely would not trust a drunk person to make a rational decision about sex, and it's morally repulsive to use that situation to one's advantage. Even in the case of drunkenness, I was referring to the situation where the drunk person specifically said "yes", giving consent. If you make a move on a drunk person and they don't actually say it's ok, but they don't really resist either, that still flirts with the line between rape and not rape. Further, if I could cut the balls off every guy that made a move on an obviously drunk girl, I would. However, I can't do that, and just because something is morally reprehensible and disgusting doesn't make it technically illegal (it damn well should be, but I don't believe it is). I also still stand by my position that a person who makes the choice to drink so much alcohol that they get drunk is taking responsibility for their actions thereafter. If a person got wasted, drove a car and killed a child, they would be practically burned at the stake by the public. If a person gets wasted and consents to having sex with someone, how can they not be held responsible for their own consent? To be clear, I'm not referring to the act of sex itself here, just the giving of consent. You don't need to carry around a breathalyzer to know when you've overindulged.
Honestly, it would be fantastic if everyone looked out for each other and held each other accountable for things like that. It would be great if everyone who tried to pick up a girl/guy first looked at them and considered "hey, I wonder if they're sober enough to make this decision correctly?" If fraternity party monitors took their jobs seriously and sought to protect their naive guests who made the mistake of getting drunk, we wouldn't even have to draw lines like these. Unfortunately most human beings don't care enough, so we're forced into these positions. It sucks, but it at least shows us that we have to look out for ourselves that much more.
Honestly, it would be fantastic if everyone looked out for each other and held each other accountable for things like that. It would be great if everyone who tried to pick up a girl/guy first looked at them and considered "hey, I wonder if they're sober enough to make this decision correctly?" If fraternity party monitors took their jobs seriously and sought to protect their naive guests who made the mistake of getting drunk, we wouldn't even have to draw lines like these. Unfortunately most human beings don't care enough, so we're forced into these positions. It sucks, but it at least shows us that we have to look out for ourselves that much more.
I think you might've misinterpreted what I said, Waterbomb. Would you trust someone's judgement if they said they were fine to drive you home when they clearly weren't (i.e. they were clearly drunk)? If not, why would you trust someone's judgement if they said they were fine to have sex with you (i.e. they were clearly drunk)? I'm not really trying to compare the act of driving while drunk to the act of having sex while drunk, though I can if you want.
Obviously, if you got in that car while drunk and ended up hurting someone because of it (running over your elderly neighbours, for example), then yeah, you're responsible for that. If you have sex while drunk and hurt someone because of it (whether raping them or neglecting to mention that you have herpes, for example), you're also responsible for that as well. However, I don't believe that it is possible for someone who is obviously too drunk to drive to be able to give informed consent. We don't trust the judgement of people who say they're fine to drive when they can't even walk in a straight line, why would we change our opinions on their judgement when it comes to sex and say "oh yeah, they have to be held responsible for saying yes they want to do it, no backsies in the morning!"? They both made the decision to be drunk, why does sex = informed consent, while driving = too stupid/drunk to make that decision? Seems wrong to me.
Obviously, if you got in that car while drunk and ended up hurting someone because of it (running over your elderly neighbours, for example), then yeah, you're responsible for that. If you have sex while drunk and hurt someone because of it (whether raping them or neglecting to mention that you have herpes, for example), you're also responsible for that as well. However, I don't believe that it is possible for someone who is obviously too drunk to drive to be able to give informed consent. We don't trust the judgement of people who say they're fine to drive when they can't even walk in a straight line, why would we change our opinions on their judgement when it comes to sex and say "oh yeah, they have to be held responsible for saying yes they want to do it, no backsies in the morning!"? They both made the decision to be drunk, why does sex = informed consent, while driving = too stupid/drunk to make that decision? Seems wrong to me.
No see that's my point. You and I wouldn't trust someone's judgment in that situation, but not everyone thinks the way we do. We can't rely on the average person to see it that way, so we have to approach it another way. Also, between the two situations you elaborated on, it should be noted that in one instance the drinker is held responsible (driving) and in the other instance the drinker is seen as a victim (consent to sex). Keep in mind, I am not saying driving a car and consenting to sex are equal, but I do want to point out that both the decision to drive a car and the decision to consent to sex are decisions made by the individual, not made for them. So, if we hold a person responsible for driving while drunk, should there at least not be a lesson given for the person who consents to sex while drunk? I'm not suggesting that rape is the lesson, I'm suggesting the "walk of shame" the next morning is. I made the mistake not once, but twice in college of consenting to sex with a girl I had no interest in. I was drunk, she wasn't, so one could argue that she "took advantage of me". However, despite the fact she SHOULD have done the right thing and ignored me, she didn't. I still held myself responsible for what happened, not her, and it was a lesson well learned (the second time =/).
- Status